Letter from the Editor-in-chief

• Jurisdiction: United States,Federal
• Citation: Vol. 5 No. 2
• Publication year: 2023

Letter from the Editor-in-Chief

[Page 117]

One of the goals of the AILA Law Journal is to publish articles that can persuade policymakers and courts to change the law that would positively impact the lives of noncitizens. The Fall 2023 issue provides a rich array of articles that have the potential to move the needle in that direction.

Immigration Judge Mimi Tsankov, in "An Article I Immigration Court: Congress, It's Time to Jump-Start This Vehicle to Judicial Independence," forcefully advocates for the creation of an independent Article I Immigration Court. The current Immigration Court is part of the Department of Justice and is subject to the whims of the political views of whichever administration is in charge, thus creating the impression that the court is part of an enforcement agency rather than a fair and neutral arbiter. An Article I Immigration Court would more fairly address the individual liberty and personal safety interests of noncitizens at issue and judges could better exercise their statutory authority to grant protection from persecution. Such a court would also be in a better position to manage its docket and clear backlogs.

In "Persecution Taxonomy: Adding Sex and Gender as Protected Grounds for Asylum," Elaine Wood points out that a barrier to asylum grants in the United States is the systemic gender bias inherent in structures of legal justice. An analysis of cases discussed in the article warrants a critical examination of Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 101(a)(42)(A) to include gender and sex as protected grounds for asylum claims in the United States. Wood's article is groundbreaking as it provides an important contribution to asylum jurisprudence through a much needed feminist lens.

In "The Mandatory Detention of Unlawful Entrants Seeking Asylum in the United States and the Due Process Protection" Jim Nzonguma Mayua argues that asylum seekers should not be subject to mandatory detention once they have established a credible fear of persecution. Notwithstanding recent Supreme Court decisions to the contrary as in Jennings v. Rodriguez and DHS v. Thuraissigiam, the due process clause should cover anyone in the United States, including asylum seekers. Mayua suggests that advocates point to earlier decisions such as Zadvydas v. Davis and Clark v. Martinez that upheld the due process rights of noncitizens in the United States when arguing against the mandatory detention of asylum seekers.

The United States has experienced a...